Except man of steel was great minus a couple minor flaws, and made almost 3/4 of a billion dollars worldwide. Close to those shitty (imo. not my style of batman) batman movies in gross. Man of Steel for all the hate it got** before it was even released** (because weirdos love to hate on superman for some reason), still kicked everyones ass when it came out, because word spread fast that it was actually good. Most peoples arguments against man of steel are dumb, and lets not forget 90 percent of the srk thread were at first complaining because he killed zod. LOL. Also complaining about property damage, which is quickly debunked, considering the military did hella damage, the world engines did hella damage on their own, and zod wasnt exactly going to let superman fly him away to a deserted area to fight. Superman was a green horn, and did his fair share of damage, but that argument is usually quickly debunked too. People can say man of steel is okay for whatever usual dumb reason (and then likely say how awesome avengers is. lol), but acting like man of steel wasnt legit is dishonest.
Doomsday wont be in the final shot. Why would it be. The process of making doomsday might be seen, but this is a movie, not a tv series. You dont end a movie with one of the greatest villains of the jla and superman standing off with one another. To what, start a movie that he is in, in a full on battle? LOL. Dont be stupid
Man of steel hate to me is like iron man 2 hate. People really cannot point out anything overwhelmingly bad about either film that could destroy it for the average person, but their own individual quirks, that are likely not shared by many, are what makes the film okay, or bad to them. Then rather then be like, i can see how everyone would love this film, but its not for me, they say, DC cant make a movie to save its life, even though the batman movies raked in over 2 billion in theater gross worldwide, and that doesnt count dvds, merchandise, etc… I dont like the batman movies myself. They were not my flavor of batman at all, although dark knight was cool, but those movies were so successful for them financially.
Marvel just throws shit on the wall and sees what sticks, and not for any good reason either. Marvel couldnt even do anime well. How do you fuck up marvel anime. All 4 of those series were complete and utter garbage, with xmen being the least offensive. Its astonishing we still have not gotten a good spiderman movie yet. SPIDERMAN! I should be watching spiderman movies every saturday morning for hours like im a kid again, but i cant, because they have very little replay value, almost down to none. I commend marvel for doing many things right, and fox for staying conistently terrible until dofp, but im still not too sold to give a fuck about xmen again, but DC hasnt tried as hard, and they have still done well. Man of steel was a hit, recent batman movies were hits, Smallville tv series a hit, upcoming flash tv series will be a hit.
I always thought Marvel used humor to acknowledge and suspend its audience’s belief that larger-than-life characters exist in the real world on-screen. It’s what allows them to get away with introducing new characters, concepts, and worlds to their cinematic universe. I mean how else would you introduce people to the likes of Captain America, Thor, or even a talking raccoon? You have to have a sense of humor and self-awareness to make them work. That helps ease the audience into who these people are so they can move onto other things in future sequels.
Humor doesn’t eliminate drama and tense situations from the films, it just spices up the little bits in-between where it can only help (assuming humor is being used properly). Thor 2 used it a tad too much with a crazy old-man running around naked, could’ve focused more on Sif, other Asguardians, or even the main villain. That problem was more of a writing issue that used humor as a poor means of overcompensating.
DC and WB’s problem is they’re chasing after Marvel’s cinematic universe model without putting the time and care into building it up properly. After one failed movie (Green Lantern) and Man of Steel (financially successful, critically divisive), they are pinning their hopes on BvS to create a larger cinematic universe that they hope audiences will actually be excited to see. What they are doing though is putting the cart before the horse, and hope the horse is strong enough to push the cart around without dying on them. They have to have the right people in place to make it all come together and really work, and I genuinely doubt they do.
But hey, I’d rather have DC/WB prove me wrong. I hope they hit it out of the park going forward. They just can’t use any excuses or blame Marvel if things don’t turn out as successful as they hoped…
Humour can also be a cheap way to build meaningful characterization. It’s easy to get the crowd behind you when you make cheap jokes and try to be the "funny man"but eventually you have to tell a story. The problem with marvel is that they write all their movies using the same formula even when it’s completely at odds with the tone and theme. This is precisely why agents of shield bombed so terribly for the first half of the season…everything was literally a gag or setting up for a joke. In a lazy attempt to make the audience connect with the cast and show, all the characters were written like slight variations of the same comedic, sarcastic, smart ass "funny"character we see in every marvel movie.
In my view I don’t think its always necessary to use humour to sell these worlds and characters. As oppose to making everything funny to justify the existence of all these crazy concepts and characters they could also just go the sin city route and suspend belief by being incredibly stylish. Now with that said keep in mind I don’t mind humour every now and then…but iron man 3 and Thor 2 are the reasons I started to hate marvel movies.
You say all the Marvel movies, but only name 3 examples (one of them a TV show). Mind you that I’ve already pointed out that humor has to be used properly, and can’t be used to overcompensate for flawed writing. IM2, IM3, and Thor 2 are the least strong out of all the Marvel movies because of that. But that’s out of 9 movies made, and those (for most) aren’t even considered bad unless you’re a stickler for comic book continuity.
Not every movie can be Sin City or even Watchman since those are standalone stories. They’re different beasts even in comic-book form and their stylized approach is more of a unique aesthetic than anything else. Both movies aren’t a part of Marvel or DC comics shared continuity, so they’re not even comparable to either one.
Why did Iron Man 3 and Thor 2 make you hate Marvel movies? Did you really have something against the movies that came before them, or did those 2 just somehow kill-off any excitement you had for future movies?
…sin city and watchman are comic books just like all these films so of course we can apply a stylistic approach. Tim Burton’s batman is a great example of style that in contrast to Nolan’s batman, could easily allow for all the "super hero"stuff just by virtue that the world is artistic enough to suspend disbelief. Also I probably should have been more clear about the marvel movies I thought weren’t that great:
Thor 1
Thor 2
Iron man 2
Iron man 3
Captain America
The reason I hated those movies was just cause they felt like Disney channel teen action movies.
Again, you just pointed out movies that have no shared continuity, have been made years apart, and have completely separate creative visions. Doing shared continuity requires communication and a certain kind of cohesiveness/understanding to work. Search up Tim Burton’s Superman and tell me how well that turned out…
If you don’t like the movies you listed, then that’s okay. All the movies aren’t great, but they’re still plenty good. I personally feel IM2, IM3, and Thor 2 are okay/watchable at least. Cap 1 and Thor 1 were good origin stories that established a solid foundation for both characters, Cap 2 just greatly capitalized off that potential while Thor 2 didn’t. Iron Man 1 was a rare great origin story, and that in itself is something hard to follow-up.
Now calling any of them Disney Channel teen action movies is bullshit. You’re either just exaggerating, or have extraordinarily high expectations for every superhero movie you watch. You don’t like them? Fine, but that doesn’t mean they were bad, because that would be entering Elektra or Catwoman territory…
Shared continuity doesn’t mean homogeny though especially when the settings and elements of the story are completely unrelated. I agree there needs to be a certain level of communication and cohesion to draw the connection but this can be accomplished by simple name dropping or cameos. The problem is that marvel uses the same approach across the spectrum of all their movies even if it isn’t appropriate to the story. I can understand iron man being comedic considering that tony is a sarcastic arrogant prick…but to have that template rinsed and repeated to someone like Thor or hulk quite simply wouldn’t work.
It’s unlikely we will agree on the films I mentioned so let’s just leave it there.